JUDGMENT : V.K. Tahilramani, J. 1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant-convicted accused against the judgment and order dated 16.08.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kalyan in Sessions Case No. 235 of 2008. By the said judgment and order, the learned Session Judge convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1000/- in default R.I. for two months. 2. The prosecution case briefly stated, is as under: (a) Deceased Kamal was the wife of the appellant. They were residing in Village Gondhalyachi Manivali in District Thane. The complainant PW-2 Sunanda was residing near the house of the appellant and the deceased. The appellant was addicted to drinking liquor. (b) The incident took place on 20.6.2008. On that day at about noon, Sunanda heard noise of shouts from the house of the appellant. The shouts were of the appellant and his wife Kamal. Sunanda neglected the shouts as the appellant and his wife used to quarrel frequently. (c) At about 5.30 p.m. one Fasabai, the mother of Police Patil, came to the house of Sunanda and told Sunanda that she had not seen Kamal. Fasabai further told that there was shouting, however, they did not go to the house of the appellant and Kamal and she told Sunanda to go to the house of Kamal. They went to the house of Kamal. The appellant was in the house. The appellant saw Sunanda and Fasabai. He came out of the house and started to run away. There was something in his armpit. When they entered the house, they saw Kamal lying dead with bleeding injury on her head. Sunanda then lodged F.I.R. Exh.10. The dead body of Kamal was sent for postmortem. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet came to be filed. 3. Charge came to be framed against the appellant under Section 302 of IPC. The appellant pleaded not guilty to the said charge and claimed to be tried. His defence was that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in paragraph 1 above, hence, this appeal preferred by the appellant against his conviction and sentence. 4. His defence was that of total denial and false implication. After going through the evidence adduced in this case, the learned Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in paragraph 1 above, hence, this appeal preferred by the appellant against his conviction and sentence. 4. We have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant and the learned APP for the State. After giving our anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the parties, the judgment delivered by the learned Sessions Judge and the evidence on record, for the reasons stated below, we are of the opinion that the appellant assaulted his wife Kamal and caused her death. 5. The conviction of the appellant is mainly based on the evidence of PW-2 Sunanda. Sunanda has stated that she was residing in Village Gondhalyachi Manivali. The house of the appellant and the deceased was situated near her house, hence, she knew them. The appellant was in habit of consuming liquor. Sunanda has further stated that on the date of the incident, she was in her house. At about noon, she heard noise of shouts from the house of the appellant. The shouts were of the appellant and his wife Kamal. Sunanda neglected the shouts as the appellant and his wife used to quarrel frequently. Sunanda further stated that at about 5.30 p.m. one Fasabai, the mother of Police Patil, came to the house of Sunanda and told Sunanda that she had not seen Kamal. Fasabai further told that there was shouting, however, they did not go to the house of the appellant and Kamal and she told Sunanda to go to the house of Kamal. They went to the house of Kamal. The appellant was in the house. The appellant saw Sunanda and Fasabai. He came out of the house and started to run away. There was something in his armpit. When they entered the house, they saw Kamal lying dead with bleeding injury on her head. Sunanda then lodged F.I.R. Exh.10. Nothing has been elicited in cross-examination of Sunanda so as to cause us to disbelieve her evidence. 6. The medical evidence shows that it was a case of homicidal death. PW-1 Dr. Bansode conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Kamal. Sunanda then lodged F.I.R. Exh.10. Nothing has been elicited in cross-examination of Sunanda so as to cause us to disbelieve her evidence. 6. The medical evidence shows that it was a case of homicidal death. PW-1 Dr. Bansode conducted the postmortem on the dead body of Kamal. He found 19 injuries on her person which are mentioned on the separate sheet to the postmortem notes Exh.8. Dr. Bansode has stated about the major injuries which are haemotoma under scalp at right fronto parietal temporal region 12 x 6 c.m. There was fracture at the base of skull linear transverse in direction C shape 4 c.m. in length. There was sub-dural hemorrhage with haemotoma on parietal region of 25 c.c. blood with blood clots. Brain matter pale. There was fracture of 5th, 6th and 7th ribs bilateral anteriorly. There was 500 ml liquid blood in the abdominal cavity. The liver was ruptured. According to Dr. Bansode, the cause of death was shock due to head injury and injury to vital organs. 7. We have already discussed above the evidence of PW-2 Sunanda, the complainant. Her evidence shows that about noon, she heard shouts of the appellant and the deceased from their house. Thereafter at 5.30 p.m. she went to the house of the appellant. The appellant saw them and started running away. On looking into the house, they saw Kamal, the wife of the appellant was lying dead in the house with injuries on her person which were bleeding injuries. In this connection, we may refer to Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Section 106 of the Evidence Act provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. In several recent decisions, the Supreme Court has held that the principle which underlies Section 106 of the Evidence Act can be applied in similar cases. In the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254 : AIR 2007 SC 144, the Supreme Court has observed that if the accused fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254 : AIR 2007 SC 144, the Supreme Court has observed that if the accused fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are specially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the Court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation as an additional link which completes the chain. 8. The conduct of the appellant is also to be noted. On seeing Sunanda, the appellant started to run away from his house. It is to be noted that the inquest panchnama Exh.12 is admitted by the defence under Section 294 of Cr.P.C. The inquest panchnama clearly shows that the dead body of Kamal was found lying in the house of the appellant. Moreover, there is no suggestion to PW-2 Sunanda that the dead body of Kamal was not found in the house of the appellant and the appellant on seeing Sunanda did not run away from his house. The appellant and the deceased were the only persons in the house, however, the appellant has not furnished any explanation for large number of injuries on the dead body of Kamal or in relation to the death of Kamal in their house. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Toran Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2002 SC 2807 . He pointed out that in the said case, the weapon was not produced before the Court and the doctor did not confirm that the injuries found on the deceased would be caused by the weapon alleged by the prosecution. He submitted that in such case, the accused came to be acquitted. He pointed out that in the said case, the weapon was not produced before the Court and the doctor did not confirm that the injuries found on the deceased would be caused by the weapon alleged by the prosecution. He submitted that in such case, the accused came to be acquitted. However, on going through the said decision, we find that the accused was not acquitted only on that ground but in addition, it is seen that the motive was not proved by the prosecution. The only eye witness who was an interested witness did not try to rescue his father. Moreover, the appellant had only one hand as the other hand was mutilated. The evidence of eye witness did not corroborate the other witnesses. There was material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the witnesses, serious infirmities and improbabilities giving rise to grave doubts as to involvement of the accused. It is in all these circumstances that the accused therein came to be acquitted. Such are not the facts in the present case, hence, this decision is not applicable to the present case. 10. Thereafter, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Mahesh Jayavantrao Aher vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 All MR (Cri) 2623. Learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that in the said case, on the night prior to the incident, the accused and his father were alone at home. The next day the sister of the deceased came and after noticing that front door was locked, went to rear door and called the accused. The accused opened the door and came out. The sister, on entering the house, noticed the dead body lying in pool of blood with several injuries. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no panchnama about arrest or seizure of the clothes of the accused, hence, the accused came to be acquitted in the case of Mahesh Aher. We cannot say that the facts are similar to that in the present case because in the present case, the appellant and the deceased were heard quarreling at noon time by PW-2 Sunanda who is not an interested witness. She is an independent witness. At 5.30 p.m. the deceased was found dead in the house and the appellant was seen trying to run away. She is an independent witness. At 5.30 p.m. the deceased was found dead in the house and the appellant was seen trying to run away. In the case of Mahesh Aher (supra), the statement of the sister, who has stated that the appellant opened the door of the house and on entering the house, she noticed her brother lying dead, was recorded after four days. Thereafter accused was arrested after two days. There was no panchnama about his arrest and in addition thereto, there was no panchnama of seizure of the clothes of the accused. Thus, it is seen that the accused was not acquitted only on the ground that there was no panchnama regarding his arrest or seizure of clothes, but he was acquitted on many other grounds. PW-2 Sunanda stated that she heard shouts of the appellant and the deceased at noon and at about 5.30 p.m. she saw the deceased lying dead in the house of the appellant and the appellant trying to run away. Sunanda has immediately lodged the F.I.R on the very same day at 8.05 p.m. Her statement was recorded on the very same day in which she has stated all these facts. No omission or contradiction in relation to these facts have been brought on record. Thus, the decision in the case of Mahesh Aher (supra) would be of no avail to the appellant. 11. Looking to the evidence on record, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the murder of his wife Kamal. Thus, we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.